ANJANABAI GOPAL TATHE Vs. BHARATI SHANKAR URANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Privy Council in Court of Wards Vs.Maharajah Cooma Ramapur has observed as under :- "That the diffculties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree, because the same is hardly executed."

(2.) The present Writ Petition depicts the woes of a decreeholder, who is kept away from the fruits of the decree from 26/07/2004 and the present Writ Petition arises out of an application fled by him, seeking possession of the suit premises.

(3.) The petitioner/original plaintiff, Smt.Anjanabai Tathe, fled a Special Civil Suit No.66 of 1666 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel against the defendants/respondents, seeking a declaration that Sale Deed dtd. 26/12/1667 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by her deceased husband in favour of defendant No.2 is null, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 6 and also sought restraint order against defendant Nos.1 and 2 for causing obstruction in her peaceful enjoyment of the said land located at Survey No.110/1-B of village Chikhale, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Pertinent to note that plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the real brothers and defendant Nos.3 to 6 are their sisters and Smt.Anjanabai (plaintiff No.1) is their mother. It was pleaded in the suit that the land belonging to deceased Gopal Krishna Tathe, who expired on 07/01/1668, was cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 6 jointly and they were having undivided share in the suit land, since it was not partitioned during the lifetime of deceased Gopal and it was claimed as an ancestral property. It is averred that Gopal Thate was an alcoholic. On his demise, when the plaintiffs applied for recording their names in the record of right, it was revealed upon them that the suit land was sold by defendant No.2, as a power of attorney holder, to defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed dtd. 26/12/1667 for consideration of Rs.7,50,000.00. Claiming that defendant No.2 had no right to sell the suit land to defendant No.1 and alleging that the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 was forged, the suit was instituted.